Relations between the Home Office and one of their favourite police organisations, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) may not be quite as tickety-boo as they should be.
Both sides strenuously deny any rift: but as senior politicians raise questions about the role of ACPO in setting public policy, any suggestion that …

Call a Spade a Spade...

The ACPO...

... seems to be a cosy little club which has no interest in being accountable to anyone else yet, somehow, has arrogated powers which enables it to influence Government policy and determine (sorry, "issue guidlines") on how the law should be interpreted and exercised.

It's good to see that the Lords are expressing concerns and more kudos accrues to Baroness Miller (who valiantly lead the opposition to the Dangerous Pictures Act), but the question remains whether our Government actually *wants* to have the ACPO subject to oversight...

Abolish ACPO

Make ACPO a proscribed organisation. These jumped up policepersons have no business forming policy. That they do, and get away with it, shows how far down the road to totalitarianism we have gone. Drip drip here, drip drip there. It all adds up.

Shadowy Organisations

Teflon Shoulders

"The difference is that the substance of any guidance issued by the Home Office may be questioned in Parliament: guidance provided by ACPO cannot."

Thus when Gov't want to push dirty totalitarian policy out they'll do it through ACPO leaving all parties unaccountable as ACPO can say they were simply restating "the legal position which the government has advised to us"

Aren't out Lords & Masters great! If only they'd put as much effort into running the country effectively as they do escaping any accountability for what they do.

In a police state...

the law is dictated, interpreted and applied by those responsile for it's enactment (polititians) and enforcement (police). We are increasingly living in a police state as are all 'democratic' western nations'.

In fact, the WORST people to interpret and apply the law are those that enact and enforce it, this is why the independance of the judiciary is foundational to any effective democracy, take that independance away and you take away one of the key foundations of democracy, and democracy it's self will tumble.

It is high time, IMO, that we restored this foundation to it's rightful place by the introduction of a written constitution along with the creation of the new 'Supreme UK Court'.

We can claim back the ground that has been lost, but this wil ONLY happen if the people rise up against our fundamentaly and thoroughly corrupt and power crazed political elite and DEMAND it.

The recent affair over British MP's expenses has proven that the public and the press, when properly incentivised and mobilised, can affect such change, now we just need to see this happen on a massive scale in relation to personal freedom and the rule of law.

In a police state...

In a police state the law is dictated, interpreted and applied by those responsible for it's enactment (politicians) and enforcement (police). We are increasingly living in a police state as are all 'democratic' western nations.

In fact, the WORST people to interpret and apply the law are those that enact and enforce it, this is why the independence of the judiciary is foundational to any effective democracy, take that independence away and you take away one of the key foundations of democracy, and democracy it's self will tumble.

It is high time, IMO, that we restored this foundation to it's rightful place by the introduction of a written constitution along with the creation of the new 'Supreme UK Court'.

We can claim back the ground that has been lost, but this will ONLY happen if the people rise up against our fundamentally and thoroughly corrupt and power crazed political elite and DEMAND it.

The recent affair over British MP's expenses has proven that the public and the press, when properly incentivised and mobilised, can affect such change, now we just need to see this happen on a massive scale in relation to personal freedom and the rule of law.

ACPO

Wasn't it also disclosed earlier this year or last year that ACPO is quite a profitable organisation.

Weren't they charging exorbitant rates for checking criminal records for people applying for US Visas or something like that. I think they were also profiting from some road penalties - driving courses for people charged with speeding perhaps?

Theory and practice

I know I am a simplistic idiot, but I thought the theory was that Parliament made the law, the police and prosecution services decided if there was a prima facie case that the law had been broken, and the courts made the decision whether or not the law had been broken.

In that case, there is a role for ACPO. It is to ensure standards of best practice and to oversee liasion between forces.

Parliament / Government is not even supposed to advise on interpretation of the law - that is for the courts. Of course, in a perfect world, the laws coming down from Parliament would be clear, concise and readily understandable.

Kudos to Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

"Given that the majority of ACPO’s funding is provided by the public in one way or another and that its leading representatives are generally serving senior police officers, it is effectively a public sector entity operating as a private company. It is responsible for leading the development and direction of police authorities in England and Wales; so its public functions are obvious. It co-ordinates strategic decisions among police forces and much of that decision-making process is opaque and unminuted."